Can we continue that discussion from Will's derailed thread?

[Will1]

Fair enough, I apologize for my comment.

I feel like it is detracting from the quality of the thread and should be dropped. The Ferguson case has no bearing in this argument, was my original intent. That is a different debate than what we are having here.

I thought this was just an open discussion on whatever applies to the current status of events and I forgive you for insinuating that I am a racist. I explained in post #81 why I determined before I was 10 years old not to judge people by the color of their skin but by the content of their character to paraphrase MLK.

I wouldn't judge all of the people who are demonstrating in Ferguson by the acts of a few who are so angry that they just want to strike out at anyone, especially the police. When someone acts like that maybe they should be arrested and forced to undergo some anger management counselling. I am angry as hell at the federal government for violating our most sacred document, the Constitution, but I'm not out throwing Molotov Cocktails at members of the federal government. The way to combat it is what we, the tax protest movement, are doing. Try to get enough people to refuse to participaate in the "VOLUNTARY" (gasp) income tax system. Even now and even if one of you went to the IRS and told them about people who don't file 1040s they are not going to do anything because already there are too many of us for them to prosecute. They only go after someone to make an example of him/her to keep the cowards who obediently pay the income tax and file their 1040s in line. Someday I hope that enough people refuse to file to force the federal government to do something about the worst fraud that has ever been perpetrated by them against "We the People."

[MutantJohn]

Oh, I wasn't calling you a racist. That's not what my post was about.

My point was, you had a very, very different experience than black people. The Ferguson case is largely about police targeting black people. How many unarmed black men have to die before something gets done? This is why there is riots. If you look at the statistics, America isn't afraid to arrest or jail black people and there's this rage building up.

So when you brought up the case, it went beyond the scope of the current discussion about economics because it's largely a race issue and as such is entirely unrelated.

Nobody's racist but yet racism still exists. For only being 12% of the population you'd expect that in the jails to reflect that. But here's a quote :

According to the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), African Americans constitute nearly 1 million of the total 2.3 million incarcerated population, and have nearly six times the rate of whites.

Statistics of incarcerated African-American males - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So accounting for 40% of the prison population leads to a few red flags, in my opinion.

Here's the thing, I'm white too and with all this talk on the internet of privilege it's important to understand that these terms aren't meant to say that you're a bad person because you're white. Instead, it's a faux-incendiary term meant to get white people to finally pay attention and realize that this country still has a long way to go in terms of race relations. I know, Will, being 75 means you've seen some stuff and yes, it's definitely a lot better than when you were a kid but now it's subtle racism.

And subtle racism is a lot harder to kill than the blatant "No ******s" signs businesses used to be able to put up.

Edit : I mean, I wouldn't want to be black in Texax, was the point of my post. If the police are any indication of what white people with guns will do to black people, I want nooooo part of that.

[MutantJohn]

Wait, is that why some other poster got upset too? Did you guys really think I was calling Will racist? I just meant, it's a really different world being white in Texas vs. being black anywhere in the United States.

[Will1]

Wait, is that why some other poster got upset too? Did you guys really think I was calling Will racist? I just meant, it's a really different world being white in Texas vs. being black anywhere in the United States.

OK, I'll accept that as an explanation of what you meant. Race relations are a whole lot better now than when I was a kid, but we still have a ways to go. The trouble with police and politics is that the people who are attracted to those are exactly the wrong type of people to have Police positions or political power. I've heard on the news that Ferguson is around 2/3 black but the police force is 97% white. That by itself is reason enough for the people of Ferguson to (peacefully) protest.

Let's not restrict the scope of this thread to economics. Let's make it an open forum on current events.

Does anyone want to comment on Isreal and Gaza? Does anyone want to comment on Ukraine? I'd like it if someone would comment on the personal income tax!

[Alpo]

Wait, is that why some other poster got upset too? Did you guys really think I was calling Will racist? I just meant, it's a really different world being white in Texas vs. being black anywhere in the United States.

I didn't actually think you were accusing Will of being racist, I thought your comment had tones of racism in itself. I actually think it was big of you to apologize, you don't see that a lot (especially online), so I've got no grudge or anything. I'll try to explain how I look at it.

I grew up, and still live in a place that is very racist (getting better slowly, but still there). What I've learned is that racism itself is ironically completely agnostic towards race. I've met both black, white, and Indian people who would simply discount what other people say based on their race. Racism isn't just blatant hatred of one race or another, it is simply any discrimination based on a person's skin color.

The point is, race doesn't matter when considering an argument, neither does privilege (which is a bit of an ambiguous and relative term). The only thing that matters is the validity of the points made.

Think of it like this, racism is abominable right? What is the root cause of racism? Some people might say hate, or anger, but there is something even more basic than that to consider, and that is the logical fallacy. Without a logical fallacy, who could possibly conclude that the amount of melanin in a persons skin is in any way linked to the content of that person's character? And without this conclusion, there could be no hatred based on race.


About the Ferguson thing, I agree it is racial tension which set off the protests. The problem with simply running with this conclusion for all cases is that there are so many cases of police brutality. You are a scientist (or a physicist?) of some sort right? What if you had a hypothesis that looked correct, but only took into account some of the data?

So although this specific case was racism, it would probably be more helpful to look at police brutality from a broader perspective. That way, a solution can be conjectured on.

Personally I think some sort of training in sensitivity to human rights for the police would go a long way. As well as more visibility, and more accountability to the public. In this new world of camera's, cops can't continue to go on as if they will be able to simply shrug off complaints of abuse, or we will continue to see this embarrassing pattern.

[Alpo]

Does anyone want to comment on Isreal and Gaza? Does anyone want to comment on Ukraine? I'd like it if someone would comment on the personal income tax!

I don't know a much about Israel and Gaza. I used to keep up to date several years ago, but I'm a bit of a fretter, so eventually I stopped paying attention to keep my sanity.

On Ukraine though, there is a really good series called "Russian Roulette", from VICE news. I know a lot of VICE news isn't very good, but this was a great and informative series. The journalist who was covering it (Simon Ostrovsky) really got up close to the conflict, and ended up getting kidnapped by pro-Russian forces. IMO, the treatment of the press is a fair indication of how tyrannical a government is, but I don't know if his kidnapping and detainment were sanctioned. Here's a link to a playlist of the series on youtube (GRAPHIC):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TNKs...d_PVwbOCDO472B

[Mario F.]

I've heard on the news that Ferguson is around 2/3 black but the police force is 97% white. That by itself is reason enough for the people of Ferguson to (peacefully) protest.

Racism has long ago gone political. Because of this -- and because of how demagogy serves politics so well -- that in itself can be considered a news racist remark, if we consider it shouldn't matter whether people are black or white. It should only matter the problem of police brutality. The news services have had an important role in perpetrating racial tension in USA and many other countries, by treating these issues with little to no social conscience and fueling tension even further.

But the real problem, as I see it, is in them people themselves. Racism is a human trait that isn't just going away without some sort of gargantuan effort in social engineering. Racism is everywhere and everyone is a victim. As a white I face on an almost daily basis racist remarks and behavior here Africa. It will take nothing short of an alien invasion for humanity to eliminate internal racial tension in favor of a new form of racial differentiation. And often it is the actual victim of racist behavior that helps fuel racial discrimination. Afro-American is as racist as Black. American Citizen is not.

[Will1]

[QUOTE=MutantJohn;1209924]You can't claim any money devoid of the government because it's the government that says the money you have has any value to begin with! Like, there is no money without the government.[?QUOTE]

Money with real value used to be the norm before the government UNCONSTITUTIONALLY declared money was nothing more than junk metal and pieces of worthless paper. When I was a kid you could take a dollar bill to a bank and get a real dollar that contained .76 of an unce of silver. It was real money and to this day a real silver dollar has value. In case you are a member of the modern generations who have been brain washed, The Constitution mandates that we use real money (gold and silver coin, or at least, real money backed paper). The reason the fiat money we use today is loosing it's accepted value constantly (inflation) is because it no longer has any real value. Read Article I, Section 10 of the Constitution. Today the paper money we use has a fraction of the value of real money!

[MutantJohn]

But that same idea is still there. There is no such thing as "real" money because money is never real. Gold has no intrinsic value. It has physical properties and characteristics, that's it. It's inanimate matter that behaves absolutely to physics.

"Money" is a thing made-up by humans.

Unless you mean like a society that operates off of trading, i.e. I give you a chicken if you help me build my roof. This system is far more primitive and is highly subjective but is it really any worse than fiat or even gold-backed money? Not really.

[laserlight]

Money with real value used to be the norm before the government UNCONSTITUTIONALLY declared money was nothing more than junk metal and pieces of worthless paper. (...) Read Article I, Section 10 of the Constitution.

Article I, Section 10 of your Constitution states that "no state shall (...) coin money; (...) make anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts". This does not appear to forbid Congress from doing these (and section 8 expressly permits the coining of money by Congress); only state governments are prohibited in that section.

[Elkvis]

Article I, Section 10 of your Constitution states that "no state shall (...) coin money; (...) make anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts". This does not appear to forbid Congress from doing these (and section 8 expressly permits the coining of money by Congress); only state governments are prohibited in that section.

You are correct. There is no constitutional requirement that federal currency be backed by something of real value. It is very clear though, that the states must use only gold and silver coin for payment of debts. I suspect that requirement is rarely followed or enforced.

I do agree with Will, and most respected economists, that in order for money to retain long-term value, it needs to be backed by something of real value, such as precious metals. Fiat money is historically unstable.

[Mario F.]

Money with real value used to be the norm before the government UNCONSTITUTIONALLY declared money was nothing more than junk metal and pieces of worthless paper.

It appears the whole world has gone unconstitutional...

When I was a kid you could take a dollar bill to a bank and get a real dollar that contained .76 of an unce of silver. It was real money and to this day a real silver dollar has value.

It doesn't matter how money is made of. You could base your whole economy on platinum bullion coins and still suffer inflation if enough of them start to circulate. Conversely, you could base your whole economy on seashells (e.g. nzime-mbuli seashells in Angola, 500 years ago) and sustain an healthy economy as long as you keep a tight control on the amount of money allowed to circulate.

Your .76 ounce of silver has in fact gone through big changes in value over the years. In 1980 you could buy silver at 102 USD, today it's a mere 18 USD. From 1920 to 1966 (for 46 years), silver never went above 10 dollars. (source). Meaning, the value of something is dictated by more factors than just the apparent value of a precious metal.

[Elkvis]

It appears the whole world has gone unconstitutional...

And it could be argued that this fact is at least partially responsible for the high degree of instability we see in the global economy.

[Mario F.]

And it could be argued that this fact is at least partially responsible for the high degree of instability we see in the global economy.

I disagree. As I see it, instability arose from a new "world order" in which the Financial System has gained power over the Economy of a country. It's not the fact that money is made of some non valuable commodity. But the fact that the financial system is capable of shadowing economic growth. Major financial institutions can, with their financial operations (see the recent subprime mortgage crisis) directly or indirectly affect the production, distribution and consumption of completely unrelated goods and services, altering and even stopping economic growth. And the global world we live in tend to cascade financial effects on local economies. An unregulated financial system in the USA can cause a global economic crisis faster and more profoundly than an unregulated domestic economic.

[whiteflags]

You are correct. There is no constitutional requirement that federal currency be backed by something of real value. It is very clear though, that the states must use only gold and silver coin for payment of debts. I suspect that requirement is rarely followed or enforced.

I think that is a misreading. I get my information from the Tax Protester FAQ this time. From the Supreme Court in the ruling of Wilson v. United States of America, 81 AFTR2d ¶98-785 (D.Col. 1998):

“Congress has exercised this power [to establish a national currency] by delegation to the federal reserve system. 12 U.S.C. section 411. Federal reserve notes are legal tender for all debts, including taxes. 31 U.S.C. section 392; Milam v. U.S. 524 F.2d 629 (9th Cir. 1974). The United States Constitution, art. 1, section 10, ‘prohibits the states from declaring legal tender anything other than gold or silver, but does not limit Congress’ power to declare what shall be legal tender for all debts.’ U.S. v. Rifen, 577 F.2d 1111,1112 (8th Cir. 1978). Since Congress has done so, there can be no valid challenge to the legality of federal reserve notes. United States v. Anderson, 584 F.2d 369, 374 (10th Cir. 1978).”

To be fair, if you take Article 1 section 10 at face value you might think that the states would make us all trade coins of metal. But then Congress also has the power explicitly taken away from the states in the same clause, to issue paper money, albeit in a different place. Two sections together define Congress' responsibility to provide legal tender.

I think this law is frequently misunderstood mainly because of the complex history of money in our nation. Ron Paul was right, at least, when he said we only had central banking for about 100 years. Before that, but not before the constitution was the law of the land, people got money from private banks. For example, The First Bank of the United States was a private company chartered by the federal government before the Civil War. We had similar systems in place up until the Federal Reserve Act. It seems ever since then the people took issue with how the government exercised its constitutional power.

The Constitution has a lot of redundancy built into it. Say for example, Congress repealed the Federal Reserve Act, but did not get around to chartering some other company to make money. Irresponsible, sure. But without law in that circumstance, we would have a constitutional crisis about money.

I'm not saying fiat money is right or wrong. There has always been a lot of politics about money in the United States and frankly I find it very boring.